From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 9 - November 1992
On Service Facs
By Bob Ross, USA
David Mayo's article on Service Facs in IVy 5 has helped me greatly to
blow some implicit invalidations resulting from my own difficulties in
following Ron's directions. However, I think that Mayo is too
pessimistic on the subject. Ser Facs can be found easily and run.
I was at SH in '63 when Ser Fac running was developed. I well recall,
my pc, saying to me, day after day "I never make people wrong". I then
found a BD item on my list which was not a Ser Fac but which when
prepchecked ran gorgeously, with lots of TA. Following that we got an
item, I think it was "being strong" which he immediately recognized as
making others wrong. He didn't make them wrong, the item did. All he
had to do was be strong and they were wrong.
Mayo's article brought home to me that one of the major weaknesses as
well as strengths of $Tech is command clearing. His article refers
only to command clearing when listing for and running of Service Facs,
with emphasis on the idea of computation. I had other experiences with
command clearing while doing my interneship at FCDC.
What may not be fully realized by people who got into Scn later than
about 1965 is that word clearing and command clearing, in session were
methods which made it possible to get results by auditors who did not
themselves understand what they were doing.
Command or question
About 1977 at FCDC I was flunked for clearing questions on 2WC by my
twin on the interneship. This was upheld by the interne sup. and by
the OEC (Org Exec Sec) who came in the door at that moment and said,
"Look up the difference between question and command in the
dictionary". I had learned in 1957 on my HCA/HPA course at FCDC that
Ron used question and command interchangeably. However, this data is
buried in a tape and is not in print.
I had to do a lot of digging, to prove my point because I could not
recall what tape it was on. That question meant the same as command is
a datum that has apparently gotten lost. This would not be apparent to
old timers unless they got flunked like I did in an Org, for doing
what was right. In my own defense in 1977, on the flunk for clearing
questions on two way communication, I was finally able to find in an
early Red Volume, data on Op Pro by Dup in which Ron implicitly refers
to the questions of Op Pro by Dup as the commands of the processes. I
later found another bulletin where the same thing was true of another
I traced this attitude at FCDC (Founding Church, Washington DC) back
to the FCDC Senior C/S, Jeannie Franks, Class IX, who later became
Jeannie Bogvad. I was also flunked on a session for putting Suppress
and Inval in on each question which did not read or F/N, when doing a
list M3 that I had previously done M5. I was interviewed on this by
the new Qual Sec, who had just been trained for the post by Jeannie
and was holding the post of Cramming Officer (Cramoff), from above. We
agreed that M3 is By-passed Charge Assessment, following which the
Qual Sec as Cramoff wrote down on my cramming order that I should look
up the terms By-passed, Charge and Assessment.
Assesment or auditing
I was supposed to understand from this that BPC Assessment was an
Assessment procedure, and that, when a question did not read or F/N on
a list, it was necessary to put Suppress and Inval in on the list
rather than on the question. This obviously had Jeannie as source as
well because as a Class VI at that time, I was able to get most of my
points across to her Class IV auditors who made up FCDC staff. I
figured that this had been enforced on Jeannie at Flag. Whoever the
original source for this foolishness was, had apparently never read
the definition of BPC assessment in Tech Dictionary and in the Book of
Case Remedies, where it says that despite the name BPC assessment is
auditing not assessment. So this must have been and maybe still is a
By the way, as a matter of interest, in a used book shop the other day
in Glendale CA, I found a copy of the Tech Dictionary marked at $79,
Dianetics Today marked at $135 and Tech volumes each marked at $129,
$1329 for the set.
I have been forced many times to spend my preclears time and money
clearing commands and doing a C/S-1 on Dianetics when this could have
been done far more cheaply, if it needed to be done at all, by putting
the pcs on a course.
In 1957 on my HCA/HPA course I learned to word and create commands
that my pc could understand and to create undercuts when the pc could
not run what had been given by Ron. In 1963 when running ARC straight
wire on my pc at Saint Hill. I did this because my pc could not run
the process as given. (This was before the days when a process had to
read to be run.)
I assessed a list of synonyms, found synonyms that read well in place
of A, R and C and ran those for several days with great TA action. I
was then told to run the commands as originally given and at that
point they ran well also.
In running 5-way help in 1957, standard procedure was to ask the pc
what help meant to him (her) and then run the process to a flat point.
After that one asked the pc again what help meant and ran the process
to another flat point, and continued that way till the process EP'd.
The pc's definition would change, change, change.
Now back to Service Facs.
In 1977, I was run on full expanded grades processes by my auditor,
Graduate Class Four auditor Connie Cambron. When we got to Ser Facs, I
let her know that there was a lot more to be found than what $Tech
called for and she listed and ran about 70 charged items per my Cogs
in the matter.
We did not limit ourselves to the type of question that David Mayo
gives in his essay, "What do you use to make others wrong?" Instead I
had her list for Ser Facs using the following non-accusative questions
developed from the R3SC formula. Right. Wrong, Dominate, Survive, and
Solve, plus others.
Flow l. Right/Wrong:
What would make you right?
What would make another wrong?
How have others been wrong?
What makes you right?
How have you been right?
What do you do that makes you right?
What do you do that keeps you from being made wrong by another?
What would prove that things have gone Right/Wrong?
Altogether I developed about 70 questions, using all brackets and all
flows, including, "What do others (or another) use to make you wrong?"
I changed the rules a bit further on this in that I had my auditor
take up every reading item just as one would on a Dianetic List,
tackling the BD items first. In other words I did not treat this as an
L&N list exclusively. I did not assume that there was only one
possible reading item.
One gives the pc a chance to answer each question whether the question
reads or not but leaves it immediately, if it did not read and the pc
has no interest in it.
We found, my auditor and I, that some items ran only on the bracket on
which they had been listed and not on the full R3RSC formula. Thus if
the pc had an answer for "What do you do that aids your survival?"
that read, it might only run for a few minutes on the subject of
survival and not read or run at all on Right/Wrong or Dominate/Escape
I developed additional questions using every definition of Ser Fac
that Mayo discussed in his article, e.g. "What would get you out of
things?" "What would excuse or explain failure?" and so on.
Each such Ser Fac with or without an expressed computation, was
something the pc used as a prepared, fixed solution that made it
unnecessary to look at similarities and differences in present time.
My full expanded list is available in my Tech Bulletin No. 5 written
in 1987. Roland Barkley also had a method of finding a subtle kind of
Ser Fac that the standard questions don't begin to touch. He gave that
in a lecture at a European Free Zone Conference and I published it as
my Bulletin #6.